The archbishop’s arguments lack logic
What the state has put together, the state can put asunder
In a recent column, I argued that those who lobby for divorce legislation are wrong to target the Catholic Church, which is not the legislator, and should instead target all members of parliament, who are the real legislators.
My point was that the Catholic Church is concerned with dogma and that it cannot and will not change its dogmatic stance on the indissolubility of marriage. Religious tenets are religious tenets, and that’s the end of that.
But sometimes the Maltese bishops hoist their skirts and leap over the channel that separates their domain from that which is none of their business. And then we do have to say something and remind them what their place is in the scheme of things.
When the Catholic Church instructs its faithful followers that what God has put together no man may put asunder, the rest of us need not argue against it. Faith is faith.
Freedom of worship is a fundamental human right and if people wish to believe that there is a God who busies himself joining people together in holy matrimony and keeping an eye out to ensure that they don’t use contraception but stick to the safe period, then the rest of us should have the good manners not to mock and cackle – even though it is hard to resist the occasional little aside as I have just done here.
And of course, one has to draw the line when there is too much public fuss about magic shoelaces. There are limits.
It is when the Catholic Church, through the medium of its Maltese bishops and archbishops, mixes questions of faith with secular arguments that it lands flat on its face and invites criticism. The archbishop’s main argument against divorce is one such. It moves from the religious domain to the secular and worse still, it is completely lacking in logic.
The Catholic Church cannot accept divorce because God’s spiritual authority to unite people in marriage cannot be transferred to man to dissolve, he said on Monday. Let’s take this statement apart piece by piece.
Is Malta a theocracy? No, it isn’t. Therefore the state is free to legislate for divorce and the Catholic Church is free not to accept divorce, as happens everywhere else in the world except for The Philippines.
To move from a refusal to accept divorce on religious grounds to a demand for a permanent ban on divorce legislation for those of all religious persuasions, of no religious persuasion at all and even for lukewarm and lapsed Catholics is a complete non sequitur.
Lack of acceptance of divorce on religious grounds is a matter of free will and faith, and not of secular legislation.
Another point: if the state cannot dissolve a marriage, then the state cannot ‘create’ a marriage either. But if the state can ‘create’ a marriage, then it can also dissolve it. Hence, if the Catholic Church recognises civil marriage and accepts the need for a secular instrument for the recognition of marriage of those who are not religious then it follows logically that it should also recognise divorce.
Surely the Catholic Church is not suggesting that the only people who are married, the world over, are those who have been married by the Catholic rite?
I don’t see the archbishop campaigning against civil marriage. We’ve had civil marriage legislation for the last 35 years or so, and the archbishop understands that it’s none of his business – no more than Muslim or Hindu marriages are any of his business.
Difficult and protracted though the process has been, the Archbishop’s Curia has come by slow and painful degrees to understand that being Maltese is not synonymous with being Catholic, and that even if it were, Catholics are free to lapse or to reject the faith into which they were immersed from birth without their consent and often against their will. In the fundamental right to freedom of worship, the emphasis is on the word ‘freedom’.
The Curia understands that not everybody wishes to marry by the Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Hindu or Jewish rite, and above all, it understands that a couple’s decision to be married civilly rather than by any religious rite is their decision alone. The Curia knows that it can interfere only in what Catholics do, and there are limits even there.
It cannot go beyond reminding Catholics of dogma and pointing out that transgressions will be punished to varying degrees. It cannot force people to uphold Catholic dogma against their will, as used to be done in the past with the Inquisition and various forms of arrest, imprisonment and torture. Nor can it do so by persuading the state to legislate in line with Catholic dogma so that we are forced not to divorce even if we wish to do so.
Just as the Archbishop’s Curia does not seek to prevent two people from contracting a civil marriage, so it should not seek to prevent them from obtaining the civil dissolution of that civil marriage. How the archbishop believes the Catholic Church has a say in this entirely secular equation is beyond me.
Between 1975 and 1993 (or thereabouts), everybody who married in Malta was married civilly. Even if we married in church, we popped into the sacristy at the end of the religious rite to go through the secular rite with an official from the Public Registry. That was compulsory. The only form of state-recognised marriage contracted in Malta was civil marriage. If you married by the religious rite alone, you were unmarried in the eyes of the law.
After 1993 (give or take a year), the Catholic Church used negotiations on the transfer of some of its property to the state as leverage to obtain special consideration for the Catholic marriage rite. Those who have married in a Catholic Church since that year have had their marriage recognised by the state without the need for a civil marriage.
But even here the Catholic Church is on very shaky ground: just as the state can recognise a marriage, so it can cease to recognise it. Once the state no longer recognises your marriage, then that marriage doesn’t exist for the purposes of the law.
The archbishop appears to believe that he has a duty to speak out against divorce in general, stepping out of his religious box and hectoring even those who are not Catholics, because he sees divorce as a social scourge. Again, his arguments on this score lack logic. It is not divorce which causes social upheaval, but marital breakdown and the formation of other, post-marriage, unions in which further children may or may not be born.
As we know only too well, that is happening to increasingly large numbers of people in Malta even without divorce. So we have the social upheaval of divorce without divorce itself, which can actually lend some normality to what some see as a totally chaotic situation.
The bishops have been using their ‘divorce will bring about social breakdown and end marriages’ argument for decades. Back when marriages didn’t break down – or at least, only in insignificant numbers – the credulous could believe this. Unfortunately for them, the bishops have continued to use this argument even as thousands of marriages have hit the rocks over the last few years and people have shaken off all fear of social opprobrium to live as pogguti and give birth to bghula?
Have those words startled you? Of course they have. Saying them now is like saying ‘nigger’, or describing homosexuals any place other than inside your head as pufti. It’s not because we have become politically correct, but because the social censure embodied in the words pogguti and bghula belongs to the past.
Though we have no divorce, our pogguti and bghula now run into the thousands and we’re still counting. In fact, the absence of divorce contributes to some of those numbers, but I wouldn’t really bet on it.
There is only one argument which the Archbishop of Malta can make sensibly and logically against divorce, and it is this. He should remind Catholics that if they wish to stick with their faith, then whether Malta has divorce legislation or not, they may not divorce. If they divorce, then they face the religious consequences.
And he should leave it at that. Anything else is not just illogical but none of his business.
He might, of course, add something else, but I can’t see it happening because of that same old Catholic dogma that makes divorce a bigger ‘sin’ than leaving your spouse to set up home with somebody else, producing a second set of children in the process: that if you’re in for a penny then you might as well be in for a pound.
If you’re going to burn in hell for chronic adultery and fornication in any case, you might as well divorce because nobody has yet discovered that there’s a more horrid and even hotter hell for people who do all that and get a divorce too.
But you never know with these things. Satan (ix-xitan, literally) might even now be head to head with his thrusting young consultants, devising a new form of roasting-spit especially intended for Maltese people who, despite having lived in a state of fornicating adultery for years while producing bastard children, do the very worst thing of all and get divorced.
This article is published in The Malta Independent today.
51 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
In reference to the quote ” Back when marriages didn’t break down – or at least, only in insignificant numbers…”
I would add on that in reality society always had a problem of failed marriages and relationships, only that in the past poeple used to accept the situation as is and even more, hide it.
Same with other facts such as children born out of marriage, teenage pregnancies, etc. I’m positive that these situations existed yet in the past people were not so open about them since society as a whole did not accept them as we do today.
The recent divorce discussions really need to take on a structured manner with both parties and the state working towards a common objective: that of introducing divorce and hopefully not using it as a political weapon by either party. Probably now is the time before we get closer to the next election.
And that is that.
Are you saying a clerical argument lacks logic? I can not believe it.
“And of course, one has to draw the line when there is too much public fuss about magic shoelaces. There are limits.”
And what about all the unneccessary pomp whilst supposedly preaching humility? (A “bridesmaid” for a bishop? – Come on!)
“But you never know with these things. Satan (ix-xitan, literally) might even now be head to head with his thrusting young consultants, devising a new form of roasting-spit especially intended for Maltese people who, despite having lived in a state of fornicating adultery for years while producing bastard children, do the very worst thing of all and get divorced.”
Another thing that really gets my goat is the way the church interferes with issues such as divorce, and yet supposedly celibate members of the clergy are free to leave the priesthood should they so wish, despite “marrying themselves to Christ”. At least four such priests spring to mind as having done so, all ending up married (some with children) – and a couple of whom have divorced.
“Another thing that really gets my goat is the way the church interferes with issues such as divorce, and yet supposedly celibate members of the clergy are free to leave the priesthood should they so wish, despite “marrying themselves to Christ”. At least four such priests spring to mind as having done so, all ending up married (some with children) – and a couple of whom have divorced.”
Can this aspect be clarified once and for all please…. for such conclusions surely lack logic because two different thing are mixed up because of ignoratia crassa et supina! Marriage is idissoluble according to Catholic sacramental theology (and Daphne you’re mixing up terms… it’s not a dogma). Such indissolubility has roots in Christian antropology and gospel values. Priesthood is also a sacrament, but NOT celibacy. In fact, once a man is ordained priest, he will be priest for ever. Celibacy is a promise that a candidate for diocesan priesthood makes. It is a disciplinary aspect which the Latin Church embraced several centuries ago. And mind you, not all the Catholic church holds the same discipline on this aspect. Catholic Oriental Churches have married priests. Those priests whom you have in mind, will remain such in aeternum. The fact they are divorces is irrelevant. The fact is that, for several reasons which they presented to the Holy See, they cannot continue their ministry as priests. But they are in fact priests, and will remain such for ever.
1. As far as I know, there is no connection between the Church property agreement and the marriage law. There is only a connection with the church schools issue, where the Church gave property to the State and the State pays teachers in Catholic schools.
[Daphne – Yes, agreement on state recognition of Catholic marriages was negotiated at the same time as the setting up of the Joint Office (church-state) for the administration of formerly church-owned property. The year was 1993, I believe.]
2. Divorce legislation may be beneficial to some individuals but will weaken the institution of marriage. As Dr Ranier Fsadni has stated, research shows where there are liberal divorce laws, the divorce rate has increased.
3. Legislation should reflect the values of the people forming part of the State. Thus one cannot ignore the Catholic view, once the majority of Maltese are Catholic.
4. However finally the point is whether the introduction of divorce will be more beneficial to society than the lack of divorce. Research appears to answer negatively – http://www.heritage.org/research/family/bg1373.cfm
“Divorce legislation may be beneficial to some individuals but will weaken the institution of marriage”
This is a statement I hear over and over again and simply do not understand. What is this ‘institution’ people refer to and how is it different to the individuals that constitute the married couples that must perforce be the members of this ‘institution? How does a ‘marriage made in hell’ not weaken this ‘institution’ but divorce does so?
The easiest way round this thorny issue is for the state to totally abandon its role as marriage-maker. It can then recognise any contract made by consenting adults for purposes of property, etc, whether gay, hetero, bi, polygamist or whatever.
Then people who prefer to do so may get married under whatever religious rituals they believe in.
This may sound like a whacky idea, but ultimately marriage is still basically a contract in the eyes of the state and giving it this special aura of sacredness is not really helpful to anyone.
I can hear what the nay-sayers say, but what about the children? And yes, one must admit that separation/divorce can have a traumatic affect on them. But maybe this has more to do with perceptions on the part of the child as to what is the norm.
More importantly, does this mean that the nay-sayers are quite happy to allow divorce for people who do not have children or whose children are now adults? Or do we go back to the argument of weakening an institution?
PS The research referred to is frankly as biased as any research coming from a left-wing liberal organisation and is therefore unreliable.
The gist of this article can be summarized in one quote from a very well known book.
“Render unto Caeser the things which are Caeser’s, and unto God the things which are God’s”
Also worth pointing out is that marriage was seen as exclusively a civil contract with no religious connotations until relatively late in Christian history. In Greek and Roman societies and even in early Christianity marriage was seen as a purely civil contractual matter without any religious significance. It was not until the early middle ages that the church “sacramentalized” marriage. Because marriage continued to be seen primarily as a civil contract it was used by those who wanted to preserve wealth and assets and love was rarely if ever a consideration. A priest was not required to be present at a marriage, the parties simply exchanged vows without the need for witnesses. A priest’s presence was only required after the Council of Trent in 1530 in the case of Catholic marriages and after the passage of Lord Hardwicke’s act in 1753 for protestant marriages. Until then marriages by “verbum” (verbal consent of the parties) were legitimate once consummated. Marriages did not even have to be registered. Marriage was arranged by the parents of the bride and groom for economic reasons. The groom was expected to find love elsewhere and did so in adulterous relationships which were the norm. The poor did not marry as a general rule but lived in concubinage and there was no religious sanction for this practice.
Therefore all this talk about marriage having been instituted by God before time began is not based in historical fact and is in fact historical nonsense. Marriage is a civil contract and only acquired religious significance very recently in human history.
So much for the ‘institution of marriage’!
“Therefore all this talk about marriage having been instituted by God before time began is not based in historical fact and is in fact historical nonsense. Marriage is a civil contract and only acquired religious significance very recently in human history.”
I’m impressed by the lack of historical information such conclusions show as regards to church history! Have you by any chance any degree in Patristics or Church History? because if yes you should know that texts from the Fathers of the Church show otherwise.
Not always the most reliable but in this case pretty much so. this excerpt from wikiipdia makes for very interesting reading:
History of marriage in the Catholic church
Concern about the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God as supported by Jesus and early followers such as Saint Paul, and the need to avoid ‘earthly ties’, meant inevitably that first-century Christians placed less value on the family but rather saw celibacy and freedom from family ties as a preferable state. Paul had suggested that marriage be used only as a last resort by those Christians that found it too difficult to remain chaste.[4]
Augustine believed that marriage was a sacrament, because it was a symbol used by Paul to express Christ’s love of the Church. Despite this, for the Fathers of the Church with their profound hostility to sex, marriage could not be a true and valuable Christian vocation. Jerome wrote: “It is not disparaging wedlock to prefer virginity. No one can make a comparison between two things if one is good and the other evil” (Letter 22). Tertullian argued that marriage “consists essentially in fornication” (An Exhortation to Chastity”) Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage said that the first commandment given to men was to increase and multiply, but now that the earth was full there was no need to continue this process of multiplication. Augustine was clear that if everybody stopped marrying and having children that would be an admirable thing; it would mean that the Kingdom of God would return all the sooner and the world would come to an end.
This negative view of marriage was reflected in the lack of interest shown by the Church authorities. No special ceremonial was devised to celebrate Christian marriage – despite the fact that the Church quickly produced liturgies to celebrate the Eucharist, Baptism and Confirmation. It was not important for a couple to have their nuptials blessed by a priest. People could marry by mutual agreement in the presence of witnesses. This system, known as Spousals, persisted after the Reformation. At first the old Roman pagan rite was used by Christians, although modified superficially. The first detailed account of a Christian wedding in the West dates from the 9th century and was identical to the old nuptial service of Ancient Rome.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_marriage
To be honest it doesn’t take much to understand just where the Catholic church stands on this matter.
The point I was making is that as a matter of historical fact as opposed to religious belief – marriage was a civil contract long before it became a religious sacrament. This is contrary to what the institutional church would have people believe. If I understood my cathecism classes correctly, during the marriage ceremony God creats an indissoluble bond between a man and a woman when they take solemn vows before God’s representative the priest. As a result marriage wasn’t marriage without a priest being present to create that indissoluble bond in God’s name and that’s why what God put together men cannot put asunder therefore divorce is a big no no. The reality is that early Christianity did not even treat marriage as a sacrament and a priest’s presence was not required for marriage to be valid until the early 16th century – that is 15 centuries after the foundation of Christianity if one dates the foundation of Christianity to the birth of Jesus. After the Council of Trent the ecclesistical courts took over the regulation of marriage and it was only then that marriage was seen in purely religious terms until the Enlightment in the 18th century or in the case of Malta until civil marriage was allowed in the late 20th century. When you examine the absolutist claims made by the religious authority figures of our day against this historical background you can see just how relative those absolutist claims are.
Excellent article as always. Thank you for the good read.
I wish our bishops read this – they won’t open up their own horizons for sure (once in a club one’s gotta abide by the club’s rules) but perhaps they become aware of the horizons of others. And hopefully realise that not everybody is “in their club” so they can’t expect all and sundry to follow their club’s rules.
The main problem with our local ‘ecclesiastical authorities’ (as opposed to those of other countries) is that they keep hammering on wishfully thinking and trying to brain-wash that once born in Malta a person is somewhat rubber-stamped a catholic till death – ie in the ‘club’ and bound by its rules.
Their little trick is to kick their faithful merhla into thinking that only by following their particular club’s rules will they live eternity happily ever after rather than rot in hell. Now, assuming what they preach really exists, I’m sure God isn’t that spiteful to shove us to hell for using contraceptives rather than having 13 kids, as I’m also sure the same God won’t throw a Muslim to hell for having a bite of barbequed pork or a swig of wine.
The local ecclesiastical authorities can’t keep imagining that 100% of the population is catholic – because as a fact it is not! And as you rightly say, the church is not the legislator so it has no right to decide on the laws of a country which would affect catholics and non-catholics alike.
Those who argue against the introduction of divorce should realise two things:
1) That the damage/hassle/trouble etc which ensues when two people can’t go on living together arises precisely just because they can’t go on living together and for nothing else.
What they do after going their separate ways, whether they obtain an annulment, whether they become priest and nun or tal-muzew, whether they start co-habiting, whether they divorce and re-marry….. it’s the inevitable separation, not what happens afterwards, which stresses out both partners and the kids!
2) That divorce is a choice.
Were it to be introduced, no one would be forcing anyone else to divorce or to get in bed with anybody else. Anti-divorcists are free to keep and adhere to their ‘separate-but-remain-faithful’ solution for all they desire. Even were their spouse to initiate divorce proceedings, they can still remain faithful as if there had been no divorce at all – being divorced does not mean that any catholic will be thrown in a bed and forced to have sex ..
Hence the catholics would still be happy and feel safe for not having broken any of their club’s rules.
But for heavens’ sake, they must quit thinking that whoever doesn’t follow catholic dogma to the rule will rot forever in hell…
[I]A man dies and goes to heaven. He sees God.
“You’re exactly what I thought you’d be like!” the man said.
“Everyone says that,” smiled God. God began to introduce the man to all the people in heaven. “This is my son Jesus,” he said and the man nodded. “And my son Muhammed,” and the man blinked. “And my son Buddha, my daughter Brigid…” God went on and the man stopped him for a moment.
“I thought you had only one child.”
God smiled. “You are all my children. Now, over here are the Muslims,” God continued pointing out peoples. “And the Buddhists, and the Jews, and the Pagans, and…”
“God, wait… you didn’t say what’s through this locked door.”
“Oh, shh,” God hushed the man and gestured him to come closer. “In there are the Catholics – don’t make any noise because they think they’re the only ones here…”
[/I]
Good sarcastic joke. It probably reflects the beliefs of many Maltese ‘faithful’ Roman Catholics.
One should remember that when an accord have been reached between the Maltese Church and the Malta Labour Party in 1969 in that written agreement the the right of the Church to teach what is right or wrong(and not only in religious matters) was recognised. So the Archbishop has every right to criticise divorce from a secular point of view just as you have every right to criticise Catholic beliefs.
[Daphne – You’re a little confused. The archbishop’s right to criticise divorce doesn’t derive from the Constitutional clause on the official religion of Malta, nor from an agreement with the Labour Party, which wasn’t in government in 1969. It is the human right to freedom of expression, and not as a bishop but as a human being and citizen of Malta.]
Thank you for once again spelling out what should be self-evident.
So, so good, Daphne. You reminded me of the Australian multi-millionnaire who suffered a heart attack in the 90s, ‘died’ for about 30 minutes, then was revived. When asked of his experience, he responded, ‘I have good news and bad news. The good news is that there is no Satan, the bad news is that there is nothing’.
Another excellent piece which, again, states which should be obvious to all but isn’t. While the State lacks the tools to dissolve a marriage, canon law does have the means to dissolve one if the Catholic Church considers it to be “in favour of the faith” i.e. if a mixed marriage with a non-baptized spouse threatens to fetter the free exercise of the faith by a Catholic.
Ultimately, however, it will be the fault of the state, specifically the government, if it fails to enact a law providing for divorce. Private members’ bills are possible, true, but they are very rare under our system. And why should a government, commanding a majority in the House, wait for a private member to bring a bill before the House to give the Maltese what is a universally-recognized right?
Why doesn’t the government tell us all why it keeps pushing this problem under the carpet? Is it political expediency, is it fear of hell, is it a callous attitude towards those who ask for divorce? A mixture of these three? Why do they play for time by saying there must be discussion (this government does not even say this anymore) when there is nothing left to discuss?
They can shut us all up, of course, by presenting the bill and secretly instructing their MP’s to vote against it! Then another generation will wait again for their rights….
Malta is not a theocracy? You wish. Just flip through some local radio channels on a Sunday morning and all you hear is marci, ruzarji and similar.
The Archbishop – just like any other person for that matter – is morally bound to look at the social effects of any legal measure which could be introduced. Even more than it is any other human being’s, it is duty to warn against any negative consequences he can envisage or foresee. Failure to do so would be tantamount to nothing less than a gross dereliction of duty, for which he must render account.
It’s a bit too much expecting logic from a man who wears a skirt and a funny fish-hat and from the church he represents which bases its teachings on a set of superstitious beliefs concocted by a bunch of goat-herders over 2000 years ago.
You’re forgetting his “bridesmaid”.
Good point. I have always wondered that if ‘we are all God’s children’, what’s the big deal about Jesus?
I’ve commented before on an article that Daphne wrote an article about the atheist bus ads in London.
I agree with most of what Daphne has written here, and I think her view on religion has perhaps changed somewhat (for the better) over the course of a few months.
Religious threats will not make people behave better, and people will ultimately do what they want. It’s only through introspection that people change, and not when they are told what is right or wrong via dogma.
I believe that a secular society would be a definite boon to Malta as a whole, and perhaps the next step would be to take religion out of schools. I believe it is a breach of basic human rights to baptize your children without their consent. Likewise, the Church’s imposition of their views on secular legislation is also a human rights issue. I completely agree that they should not assume that they have a right to affect laws–which in this article’s context–is divorce.
As an ardent secularist, I am glad that Daphne has chosen to write about this issue without holding back any punches, as it will definitely be illuminating to the Maltese population and perhaps coax them to question the current status quo and their own views on secular society, and the role of religion therein.
“Religious threats will not make people behave better, and people will ultimately do what they want.”
I agree. I also believe that ‘crusades’ do not achieve the desired goal.
The Catholic Church should give more importance to guiding her ‘flock’ (once some people are talking of goats) when faced with a marriage breakdown. Sometimes I think that the Catholic Church doesn’t fully comprehend the sacrifice and the pain that Catholics who are faced with such a problem go through. You may be living and thinking that you are a good Catholic family but one day you wake up to face the music just like everybody else. So, I would prefer if the Catholic Church tends more to her own.
I am all in favour of freedom and a healthy discussion but we can do without insults. (Ronnie please note).
“I believe it is a breach of basic human rights to baptize your children without their consent. “… maybe you should also wait for their consent on other issues, such as which school and what kind of education they want, whast kind of food they would like, what environment they wish to live in, if they want to be breast fed or not, or if they are happy with their parents…
@sj g
Given that you are so well-versed in the teachings of the Catholic Church and its history can you answer two simple questions please?
We are talking here about the dissolution through divorce of civil marriage, so iin what way exactly would the Catholic Church or Catholic marriage be affected by this legislation?
What difference does it make to children whether their parents are separated or divorced?
Rather than taking religions education out of school, why not teach comparative religion? It would be of great benefit to our children to know more about spiritual affairs across the globe.
As regards their flawed argument that the introduction of divorce will increase the number of marriage breakdowns – I have yet to hear of any couple saying they’re not going to separate but keep bearing it out just because there is no divorce option. Marriages still break down if they have to break down, divorce or no divorce.
I loved the last paragraph. Sounds like an addendum to D. A.’s Inferno can be added.
Le ghad-divorzju … viva Santa Marija:
“Friday, 21st August 2009 – 13:40CET
Sta Marija incident lands man in custody
A Gudja resident was remanded in custody after pleading not guilty to seriously injuring a police officer during his village festa celebrations last Saturday.
56-year-old Alessju Barbara also pleaded not guilty to threatening a police officer and damaging the property of the La Stella Gudja band club.
Mr Barbara was in the band club while a march by the rival club went by. People rushed out and and the police officer dislocated his shoulder in the commotion.” http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090821/local/sta-marija-incident-lands-man-in-custody
Aussies blown for 160.
And again, you all missed Daphne’s point. If there’s an institution upon which you should heap scorn, it’s our parliament, not the Catholic Church, which has no legislating power.
I really can`t understand how somebody could marry `for better or for worse` and vow to remain so married `until death do us part` and yet clamour for divorce in the same breath . It should be more logical to resort to temporary marriages for a few years. [ I believe the Iranians or the Shi`ites have this sort of arrangement ] . Marrying and divorcing and remarrying again and again and again seems more like serial polygamy to me – talk about the regression of society.
Say that to the spouse of a compulsive cheater. Or why not to the wife who, after having her own face smashed up, has to witness the abuse laid down by a violent husband and father. Stop talk about regression of society, while uttering such mindless nonsense.
Polygamy is what we have today, when a separated couple are forced to stay married and proceed to make new families. Explain how divorce makes that situation worse.
You are right, Pat…but then many of those victims of domestic violence would say: ‘But he is a good husband / father and I love him.’ Heard that so many times. Better fear your husband then sin against God.
Yes, that is an extremely common problem, which is why we have to ensure that the victims that at least try to turn away from such violence have the functions and support in place to do so.
Lift the blanket a bit, Hilmar, and you will find that your regression of society and polygamy (sort of) has already arrived in many houses…or bedrooms.
Sorry, I meant ‘Hilar’.
“Polygamy is what we have today, when a separated couple are forced to stay married and proceed to make new families.”
Well, what`s the point of institutionalising this behaviour ? What if many people are robbing their neighbours` goods? Should the law legalise theft then? Besides, once the law sanctions this behaviour, it would become far more acceptable and widespread.
[Daphne – An illogical argument: adultery, fornication and the creation of children outside wedlock are not crimes, unlike theft.]
And as for abusive and violent husbands – why unleash them onto other unsuspecting women and children?
[Daphne – You may have failed to notice that such people, like all others, do not require the law to release them from a marriage so that they may unleash themselves onto another woman, unsuspecting or otherwise.]
Better to clamp them behind bars or under a tight rein [one would almost wish it were not meant figuratively!] rather than allow them to spread misery and havoc in other marriages.
[Daphne – Another illogical argument: because some men are bastards, no person should be permitted divorce, in case the bastards remarry. If you’re going to trample on people’s rights, why not fine-tune your strategy and just ban the bastards from remarrying?]
“Adultery, fornication and the creation of children outside wedlock are not crimes, unlike theft.” Quite. It`s not as though the state prohibits , punishes and severely represses adultery, fornication and the creation of children outside wedlock and people therefore are free to do whatever they want to do. So why elevate this behaviour to the level of an institution? I hasten to add that social opprobrium and censure regarding the above is unpleasant especially where children are involved but going to the other extreme and `normalizing` these temporary unions – here today and gone tomorrow – does not make for a stable society and stable families.
It doesn’t strike me as sound and analytical reasoning to continue to disregard mounting evidence in social science journals which demonstrates the devastating physical, emotional, and financial effects that divorce is having on children which will last well into adulthood and affect future generations.
[Daphne – Those are not the effects of divorce but the effects of marital breakdown and we have exactly the same situation here.]
One such effect being that families with children that were not poor before the divorce see their income drop as much as 50 percent and that almost 50 percent of the parents with children that are going through a divorce move into poverty after the divorce.
[Daphne – Again, we have the same situation here.]
You may say that separation has the same effect as divorce but I don`t really think so and statistics show this quite clearly. Divorce has an inherent tendency to increase the likelihood of and hasten the breakdown in marriage.
[Daphne – You are quite wrong.]
Moreover whilst other countries are moving in the direction of trying to reduce the incidence of divorce and ending “no-fault” divorce ` here we are in Malta clamouring for its introduction.
[Daphne – ‘Other countries’ are not trying to reduce divorce. They are trying to decrease the incidence of marital breakdown and to encourage stable unions between those who have children (an important distinction, as nobody gives a flying wotsit what people without children do). Marriages break down with or without divorce, and without divorce it is – this may come as a surprise to you – a lot easier.]
“You may say that separation has the same effect as divorce but I don`t really think so and statistics show this quite clearly.”
Even if this was true, which I strongly doubt, what difference does that make?
I could show statistically that there is less discontent in North Korea than in many western nations, does that mean necrocracies (as the head of state is actually dead) is a good thing?
If I show statistics that the harsher Sharia methods of cutting off limbs of perpetrators actually lessens crime, should we introduce the same laws?
There is a recent study by Gregory Paul showing a strong positive correlation between religiosity in prosperous nations and a series of social ills such as homocide, teenage pregnancies, high levels of abortion and sexually transmitted diseases. Does this mean we should outlaw religion?
Divorce is a private issue and trying to meddle with statistics to prove a point in a private matter is doomed to fail. As I said before, show your statistics to the spouse of a compulsive cheater, or the wife of an abusive husband and father. By arguing against divorce in those cases you choose to side against the victim, creating an institutionalised situation for continued abuse and adultery.
Well, you can bring any number of arguments to substantiate your claim in favour of the beneficial effects of divorce legislation – even if mounting evidence in other societies shows otherwise.
This rather reminds me of the debate about global warming which took place a few years back when, in spite of several scientific reports warning about man – induced danger to the environment , Rush Limbaugh dismissed concern about climate upheaval as being alarmist – and logical arguments he brought too – except that it is all too obvious now that he was hopelessly wrong in his logical conclusions which failed to give due weight to the evidence.
I’m sorry, but there is no resemblance. Divorce, and I can’t repeat this enough it seems, is a PRIVATE matter. Global warming is a GLOBAL problem. No matter how many statistics you show, the mechanics to terminate a marriage contract between two people is a fundamental right.